States v. York University, 2010 HRTO 1160

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tom States

Applicant

-and-

York University

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1160

Indexed as: States v. York University

1This Interim Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application was filed in June 2009. It has been the subject of a number of Interim Decisions. Consideration of the Application was initially deferred pending the outcome of a complaint process under the collective agreement between the respondent and CUPE. The applicant then advised the Tribunal that he no longer wished to pursue the complaint process. Pursuant to direction from the Tribunal, the respondent filed a Response.

2The applicant has subsequently filed a number of documents with the Tribunal, including a Request for Order During Proceedings and a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. He seeks:

• To add another respondent

• A Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to obtain evidence from the new proposed respondent and from the respondent York University.

• Production of documents by York University.

3The proposed respondents have no connection to York University and the allegations with respect to the proposed respondents do not appear to have any connection to the allegations set out in the Application against York University. Adding the proposed respondents would result in a very significant amendment to the Application to include new and unrelated issues and parties. The request to add proposed respondents is denied.

4Since the proposed respondents are not respondents to this Application, there is no reason to order them to produce any documents and no basis for a Tribunal ordered enquiry with respect to them.

5It is premature for the Tribunal to order the production of any documents from York University. Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out the procedures regarding disclosure of documents. These procedures are triggered when the Tribunal issues a Confirmation of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case.

6There is no basis to order an inquiry respecting documents in the possession of the respondent. In the normal course the parties are required to produce all arguably relevant documents in their possession. If the parties cannot agree or if one party has reason to believe that there are documents in the possession of a party or other person that have not been produced, the Tribunal has the authority to order the production of materials.

7The applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings and Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry are denied.

8The Tribunal will schedule a hearing in this matter. The respondent is not required to respond to any future Request for Order During Proceedings from the applicant unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.